Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Originally posted by Redrake
    The discussion was about the Pope and his influence in the communist Poland.
    Yes, Cold War was a world war, but not as is usually accepted as an war between US and USSR. There was cold war in the relations between most communist countries. At the base of the communism stood the nationalism, despite their claim about world unity. Tito was against the russians, Ceausescu was against russians and hungarians, Honecker was against polish, Mao was against russians and vietnamese. These are facts, that mostly are overlooked, because is seen all as in good vs evil or black&white.
    While we're on the subject, don't forget communism attempting to take hold in Central America. There are still FMLN guerillas in El Salvador to this very day.

    On the subject of the Pope, he also visited communist Cuba in his latter days.

    EDIT: Could his visit have been what prompted the new rice cooker handouts?
    Last edited by Dr Maturin; 04-04-2005, 12:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redrake
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
    That depends on whether you include China, Korea, africa and Vietnam. The Cold War was a world war.
    The discussion was about the Pope and his influence in the communist Poland.
    Yes, Cold War was a world war, but not as is usually accepted as an war between US and USSR. There was cold war in the relations between most communist countries. At the base of the communism stood the nationalism, despite their claim about world unity. Tito was against the russians, Ceausescu was against russians and hungarians, Honecker was against polish, Mao was against russians and vietnamese. These are facts, that mostly are overlooked, because is seen all as in good vs evil or black&white.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew_Swallow
    replied
    Originally posted by Redrake
    Don't forget, that all those eastern european countries were abandoned in the hands on Stalin, by US and british. Those leaders never went to a comunist country and say it loudly to the people: "Opose the government! Keep your faith!".
    That depends on whether you include China, Korea, africa and Vietnam. The Cold War was a world war.

    Leave a comment:


  • AaronB
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan
    I don't understand that. Why was his nationality important?

    What was the apology for? This may be a point that I've overlooked. I don't follow news closely but I do think I've heard that this Pope did much to try to atone for past mistakes the church made regarding other religions and for trying to suppress scientific progress.

    Jan
    We can start at the Council of Nicea in 312 AD (the start of ghettos and jews wearing clothing that identified them as such were instituted then) and work our way up to the pope during WW2 (Pious, I think) and the accusations that he was if not in league with Hitler, then didn't do a whole lot about what was going on at that time.

    Pope John Paul II really changed all of that and really worked on and acheived outreach and dialogue with those that didn't agree with him. As they say in Yiddish, he was a real mentsch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Becky S.
    replied
    Not all Americans do not understand the politics of the European countries, Redrake. I certainly don't claim to understand everything, but I do understand a lot.

    Pope John Paul II went to Poland (basically dared the leadship to stop him from going) and called the system (communism) evil and wrong. For anyone who can't quite figure out why that is significant - think of when Ronald Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire. And his so often heard quote of "Tear down this wall." How we view that and it's effect on the fall of communism, is similar to the effect the Pope had on influencing the people of Poland and other oppressed European countries.

    John Paul II, President Reagan, and Prime Minister Thacher created a trio of world leaders who were instrumental in undermining and distroying communism all over the world.

    The politics of Europe (as well as Asia and Africa) are complex - with centries of history to sort through to understand how they relate to each other. American politics isn't that difficult - although we are getting there. It takes years to studying of history (for non Europeans) to understand it.

    I'm not Catholic, but I admired the Pope. He was willing to challenge people everywhere to examine their views and beliefs. I wish he and the Church would have handled several things differently - abortion, women as preists, views on marriage among them. But again, discussion and debate were opened even by the way they were handled. Isn't that the beginnings of change?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan
    I don't understand that. Why was his nationality important?
    Poland was abandoned, as Redrake said, to Stalin. Alger Hiss, the man who we would learn over fifty years later was a proven traitor to the US, pushed to give Stalin many eastern European states as a way to thank him for his help in crushing the Nazis. What Hiss didn't realize -- or probably did -- was that Stalin was no different from Hitler.

    John Paul II was like a champion of these lost souls, giving them hope. Whether you like him or not, when the Pope speaks, people listen. His kissing of the ground in Poland was a huge thing.

    And there we run into a problem I have. Without going into the abortion debate again (though that's hardly my only issue with the church stance on birth control), my point is that, when speaking of church doctrine, the Pope isn't supposed to be speaking as a man, but to be speaking the word of God. Even if one doesn't personally accept that, it's one hell of a bully pulpit to be expounding opinions from.
    This is the major problem with the Church. Sorry, Redrake, but to me it IS a joke. I don't see how one century this or that isn't acceptable to the Church and then in the next century, it is, all decided by a bunch of guys in red hats.

    What was the apology for? This may be a point that I've overlooked. I don't follow news closely but I do think I've heard that this Pope did much to try to atone for past mistakes the church made regarding other religions and for trying to suppress scientific progress.
    The Jews were treated as these pariahs after WW2. The Ku Klux Klan, Nazi remnants and even the Church blamed the Jews for the evils of the world. The Church had also been somewhat anti-Jew because of the fact that they sent Jesus Christ to his execution. Sadly, it wasn't until Israel became a major military power in the 20th century that people began to take them more seriously, for better or worse. Some people increased their hatred towards the Jews while others became more open to them. Nevertheless, John Paul II apologizing to them was still seen as a landmark event.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redrake
    replied
    Yes, you are an american. It doesn't surprise me you don't understand why nationality is important in Europe. Russian imposed their model on every level of the eastern countrie societies. Nationality was very important, because all we saw was the communism brought by russians. An italian pope speaking against the comunism, would have had any impact for the communist countries, more than a journalist from Radio "Free Europe". He would have any reason to come to a communist country. But a polish Pope, means that there is someone who is willing to fight against the opression.

    What was he sorry for? Is simple. During WWII Catholic church didn't lift a finger for jews exterminated by the nazis. This was a thing that jews never forget. Until John Paul II become Pope, there weren't any diplomatic relations between Israel and Vatican. He was also a Polish, many jews were taken from Poland during the war. Polish people weren't guilty, but he felt responsible for not saying a word against the extermination of the jews.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Originally posted by Redrake
    You guys, never lived under comunism, so I think you don't really understand the importance of the Pope in the fall of the comunism in the Eastern Europe. People there being opressed, found hope only in the church, even if most priests were taken away. A polish Pope, was seen as a true sign from God.
    I don't understand that. Why was his nationality important?

    It hasted the movements against the comunism. Yes other world leaders, oposed comunism, but from thousands of miles away. Don't forget, that all those eastern european countries were abandoned in the hands on Stalin, by US and british. Those leaders never went to a comunist country and say it loudly to the people: "Opose the government! Keep your faith!".
    Okay, I get that. I'm not sure other country's leaders would have been allowed into Communist counries but I concede that it was important.

    Yes, Pope made some mistakes, but he was not a saint, he was only a human. But he allways tried to mediate peace. You might not like his opinions about the avortion, but ask yourself this. Is the world a better place with the avortion? I agree, that women who were raped, should have the right to the avortion, but I don't agree with any other kind of avortion.
    And there we run into a problem I have. Without going into the abortion debate again (though that's hardly my only issue with the church stance on birth control), my point is that, when speaking of church doctrine, the Pope isn't supposed to be speaking as a man, but to be speaking the word of God. Even if one doesn't personally accept that, it's one hell of a bully pulpit to be expounding opinions from.

    He was the first Pope to say "I'm sorry, we were wrong" to the Jews.
    What was the apology for? This may be a point that I've overlooked. I don't follow news closely but I do think I've heard that this Pope did much to try to atone for past mistakes the church made regarding other religions and for trying to suppress scientific progress.

    I hope the next Pope (wheter he is nigerian, italian or brazilian) will continue John Paul II's work for peace and harmony.
    There we can agree.

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • Redrake
    replied
    You guys, never lived under comunism, so I think you don't really understand the importance of the Pope in the fall of the comunism in the Eastern Europe. People there being opressed, found hope only in the church, even if most priests were taken away. A polish Pope, was seen as a true sign from God. It hasted the movements against the comunism. Yes other world leaders, oposed comunism, but from thousands of miles away. Don't forget, that all those eastern european countries were abandoned in the hands on Stalin, by US and british. Those leaders never went to a comunist country and say it loudly to the people: "Opose the government! Keep your faith!".
    Yes, Pope made some mistakes, but he was not a saint, he was only a human. But he allways tried to mediate peace. You might not like his opinions about the avortion, but ask yourself this. Is the world a better place with the avortion? I agree, that women who were raped, should have the right to the avortion, but I don't agree with any other kind of avortion.

    He was the first Pope to say "I'm sorry, we were wrong" to the Jews.

    And Z'ha'dumDweller, don't insult other people believes, you might not be a catholic, but don't call it a joke. I'm not a catholic, I'm an orhodox, but still I think the Pope was one of the greatest personalities in the last century. The catholicism from the Dark Ages is not he same with the catholicism with the present time. I hope the next Pope (wheter he is nigerian, italian or brazilian) will continue John Paul II's work for peace and harmony.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    I disagree with mostly everything he believed in, mainly because Catholicism is a joke. But not being able to conjur up anything good to say about him strains credulity. His opposing communism was a great and wonderful thing.
    I don't think Catholicism or any other religion are jokes, though I don't subscribe to them. As for his opposing Communism, didn't a whole lot of world leaders? It was kind of the 'in thing', after all. Was there something that John Paul II did in his role of Pope that was particularly helpful to that opposition? That's not a flip question, btw. If there was something in particular that he did, I'm just not aware of it.

    Originally posted by WillieStealAndHow
    I would like to see whomever is appointed pope to continue in those areas I praised John Paul II for, but do more in removing those priests who have "personal meetings" with their altar boys.
    One can't help but wonder which is symptom and which is disease? Did the church actually attract pedophiles who were trying to 'cure' themselves through celibacy or were they attracted due to the contact that they'd have with young people? Might celibacy have aggravated latent inclinations? I just keep coming back to the conclusion that religion, any religion shouldn't regulate matters of sexual expression.

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    I disagree with mostly everything he believed in, mainly because Catholicism is a joke. But not being able to conjur up anything good to say about him strains credulity. His opposing communism was a great and wonderful thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Panzer
    replied
    I'm not a religious person at all. I have no reason to grant assent to any god-claims (be it christian, hindu, or a rock in the African savannah) that I've encountered. I do have an interest in studying theologies, not for any spiritual enlightenment, but just a better understanding of what some believe in, from a selfish reason of learning something new to a worthwhile reason of having a respect for different beliefs. I find learning about a subject you originally knew little about to be more beneficial in the long term than making uneducated comments.

    Back to the pope, I admired him for staying true to the ethical guidelines that I appreciate in the christian bible, such as the beatitudes in Matthew 5, and the fruits of the spirit Paul wrote of in one of his epistles which escapes my memory. While staying firm upon those, he displayed a kind, warm heart and gentle spirit that I wish more followers of any faith could display. I would like to see whomever is appointed pope to continue in those areas I praised John Paul II for, but do more in removing those priests who have "personal meetings" with their altar boys.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    started a topic The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

    The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

    Oh, what the heck, we've survived talking politics, why not religion?!

    Pope John Paul II died a few hours ago and the news is going to be reviewing his life and papacy for the next several weeks as he's laid to rest among pomp and circumstance and another Pope is chosen to replace him.

    I tried to think of something good I could say and sincerely mean in the RIP thread and...I just couldn't. Not that I don't think that he was a good and decent man, I have no reason to believe anything but that he was-as an individual. I simply and implacably believe that the policies that his papacy perpetuated regarding love, sex and procreation were utterly and irredeemably wrong and the consequences of those dictates may have even bordered on evil given the suffering that they caused.

    I wish I thought that Pope John Paul II's successor might change things but I can't say I have any hope of that.

    Jan
Working...
X